BOSTON: 


WALKER, WISE, AND COMPANY, 


. 


245, WASHINGTON STREET. 





Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. A 
charge is made on all overdue 
books. : 


U. of I. Library 





SECESSION, CONCESSION, OR 


SELE-POSSESSION : 


WHICH? 





BOSTON: 


WALKER, WISE, AND COMPANY, 
245, WASHINGTON S?REET. 


1861. 









BOSTON: Ae 
- ‘ Ly ' 
AV ERM | PRINTED BY JOHN WILSON AND SON 
)*\ \ ; : { ‘ ¢ , ‘ie 
\ 22, Scuoon Srreer. . my 
+4. 3°) a | “ats 


e 


i} 


Toe 
, it, ny 10,9 
rel ; : 4 i, 
Lee Dy t ) a ; <4. a ve V 
OR ORE gta 


yes titek 2, ( p * 5 


AY 


“~~ 
@ 


Sor. 1t © 


yO 


Wert. 


at —e 
i i 
. aa - 


Vi 


WILL THE SLAVE STATES SECEDE, OR RECEDE? 
SHALL THE FREE STATES CONCEDE? 


To THE Hon. CHARLES SUMNER. 


Dear Sir,— In the early and legendary history of 
Rome, it is related that one of the Sibyls brought to 
Tarquin the Second nine books of oracles, containing 
an account of the future fortunes of the Roman race. 
Thinking her price exorbitant, the king refused to 
buy them; whereupon she burned three volumes, and 
asked the same price for the remaining six. Tarquin 
could not make up his mind to payit. ‘Then she 
burned three more, and asked the same price for the 
three which remained. ‘The monarch was astonished; 
consulted the augurs, and, by their advice, bought the 
books ; which were preserved in the Capitol, with 
much care, for many centuries. 

The same Sibyl has visited. our country and our 
rulers many times during the last twenty years. She 
came at the time of the annexation of Texas, and 
offered us prosperity, union, and freedom. But the 
price which she asked we thought high; we could 
not afford to pay it: it was a courageous and firm re- 
sistance to the demands of the slave-power. Such 


b 441380 


d 


resistance, at that time, would have settled all difficul- 
ties; for the largest and best part of the Slave States 
were, for a long time, opposed to annexation. But 
the North was divided, and could offer no firm resist- 
ance. ‘The slave-power triumphed, and Texas was 
annexed to the Union, with the avowed purpose of 
extending and strengthening slavery. In 1850, the 
Sibyl came again, and offered us somewhat less at 
the same price. If we should have the courage then 
to exclude slavery by law from the Territories, we 
should encounter difficulty. The slave-power would 
resist and threaten, but there would be no disunion. 
But again we thought the price too high, and we did 
not pay it. We had another offer in 1856, which we 
declined. And now, in 1860, the Sibyl comes again. 
She offers us far less than at first. We can still have 
freedom and national prosperity, but not union. 
Some States have decided to leave us; but they may 
leave us peacefully, and many of the Slave States 
may remain with us. But, if we are afraid to pay the 
price, the Sibyl will come again and again, offering 
less each time; and we shall have at last to come to 
her terms: for the name of the Sibyl is Oprorrv- 
NITY. 

We can never purchase a permanent settlement of 
the controversy between Freedom and Slavery but by 
firm resistance to itsencroachments. ‘That is the price 
which is to be paid, sooner or later. [very other 
solution of the difficulty must fail hereafter, as it has 
failed heretofore. Only, the longer the solution is 
deferred, the worse our position will be. By firm re- 


D 

sistance to the demands of slavery in past times, the 
question might have been for ever settled, leaving us 
a free and united nation. By firm, calm resistance 
now, we shall remain a free and prosperous nation, 
perhaps with the temporary loss of some States. But 
we can part peacefully. There need be no strife 
between us. Je do not wish to make war upon them, 
and they are not strong enough to make war upon us. 
But if, for the sake of retaining these States in the 
Union, we make still further concessions, we are pre- 
paring for the future a much more terrific solution of 
the question. Somewhere we must resist: we must 
take a stand somewhere. If we take this stand now, 
all that the seceding States ask is permission to go 
out in peace. But, if we concede now, they will cer- 
tainly come in a year or two with fresh demands, to 
which it will be impossible for us to submit; and, 
when we do at last resist, the Union will be divided, 
not by the secession of the Gulf States alone, but it 
will be rent astinder at the centre or broken into 
many fragments, and that after a destructive war. 

For the Slave States already intimate that they 
must have a change in the organic law. ‘They de- 
mand a convention of States to change the Constitu- 
tion, so as to make it less republican. They desire — 
to introduce an element of oligarchy. Long since, — 
they have denied and scoffed at the doctrines of the 
Declaration of Independence. They now deny the 
right of the majority to govern the country; and they 
wish to have the Constitution so altered, that a mino- 
rity, and not a majority, shall govern. 


6 


We have seen many crises in our day; but the 
present seems to me the most important of all. 
Many of the great voices which might have in- 
structed us concerning the duties of this solemn 
hour are silent in the grave. The sublime soul 
of Channing is no more with us; the noble elo- 
quence of Henry Clay is silenced; the great weight 
of John Quincy Adams is removed ; the command- 
ing and comprehensive intellect of Webster is gone ; 
the indignant voice of Theodore Parker is hushed ; 
the actors whose energetic wills were dedicated 
to freedom are also taken away; the strong arm 
of Andrew Jackson, the manly courage of Zachary 
Taylor, and the eccentric but honest energy of Ben- 
ton, are not here to aid us now. 

‘“‘The knights are dust, and their good swords rust: 
Their souls are with the saints, we trust ; ” — 
or, if not with the saints, at any rate with the heroes 
and champions of Freedom. 

Under these circumstances, it seems proper for the 
people themselves everywhere to express their convic- 
tions, that their representatives may understand a lit- 
tle what is the real public sentiment of the country, 
and arrange their measures accordingly. I believe 
that there is a very general sentiment among the peo- 
ple, that the issue must be met now, and the question 
finally settled ; that no more concessions can be made 
with safety, and that further compromises are impos- 
sible. 

I share this belief, and will give some of the reasons 


which seem to me to justify it. 


7 2 


Will the South secede, and why? This is the first 8, 
question; and it may be answered by the accomplished 
fact, before these words I am now writing are printed. 
For I think that some of the Southern States mean 
to secede, and that immediately ; and that they will 
fulfil their design. Yet let us ask, What are their 
motives? What leads them to do that which seems 
to us so rash and dangerous ? ip f 
There are two principal causes which will produce ‘ ‘4 
secession ; the one a reason, the other a motive. The / eft 
reason is, that they think it will be for their advan-\ } 
tage to secede: the motive is, that they hate the an- \ a 
tislavery element in the Free States. The reason ¥ 
applies principally to South Carolina and the cotton- | | 
growing States. ‘The motive applies to nearly all of J 
these slaveholding communities. If they act accord- \ 
ing to their opinions, only a few States will secede ; | 
but if according to their feelings, many more may | 
follow. It cannot be made even to seem the interest 
of the farming Slave States to secede; but, if their 
feelings are excited, they may go in spite of their in- 
terests. ‘Those, therefore, who desire that the seces- 
sion shall be small, should, above all things, seek to 
prevent the Northern Slave States from committing 
themselves to a demand for compromises which they 
can never obtain. Here, at present, lies our princi- 
pal danger. Every one who encourages the farming 
Slave States to assume the position of mediators, in 
order to get some concession from the North which 
shall quiet South Carolina, increases the risk of a 
larger secession ; for, as we shall by and by show, it 


cot 


3) 


\ 
‘, 
— ‘\ 


) 


is impossible for the North to make any concession, 
and there is nothing to compromise. But if Virginia 
and Kentucky demand that the North yield something 
in order that South Carolina may consent to stay in 
the Union, and are disappointed, as they will be, they 
may decide to secede also, though against their inte- 
rests, in consequence of their disappointment. 

I think that no one can read Southern speeches or 
Southern newspapers, without being convinced that 
the leading men at the extreme South think that it 
will be for their interest. to leave the Union, and to 
unite in a great slaveholding, cotton-growing, com- 
mercial confederacy. Eoin reason thus: ‘‘ Cotton is 
| king. We raise the cotton, — the great export of the 
country, — indispensable to the prosperity of England, 
indispensable to that of the Northern States. Why, 
then, are our States comparatively poor and weak ? 
We are falling behind continually in wealth, and the 
power is passing out of our hands. Soon the North 
will have every thing its own way. Its interests are 
essentially different from ours. It will govern us for 
its own good; will pass such tariffs as it chooses; will 
build up its manufactures and its commerce at the 
expense of ours. Already Boston, New York, and 
Philadelphia are elevated to colossal dimensions at our 
expense. ‘The interests of the two sections are essen- 
tially hostile. The North has the majority, and will 
soon control the whole Government. It will necessa- 
rily govern the country for its own interest, not ours. 
Our only safety is in separation. We can then have 
free trade; we can make Charleston, Savannah, and 


3 


Mobile free ports, which will create at once a direct | 
trade with Europe, and build up great commercial ie 
cities at home.” | | 

This is the view which satisfies the leading states- 
men of the South that it is for their interest to 
separate. Itis nota pretence: it isa conviction. It 
has this truth, also, at its foundation, — that the needs 
and desires of the two sections are really opposite: 
the interests of slavery and freedom are not identical. 
Republican institutions are unsuited to slavery: true | 
democracy is to them impossible. Therefore universal 
suffrage has never been the rule in the Slave States.{ | 
The government of the South is virtually an oligar- J 
chy. Although the Slave States have only three 
hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders and six million 
white non-slaveholders, yet who but slaveholders are 
ever sent to Congress from the Slave States, or elected 
governors or judges in any of them? All the wealth 
of these States is in the hands of the slaveholders. 
United by this immense common interest, they possess 
the whole power. It is necessary that they should 
have it for their own safety; and necessity knows no 
law. 

The slaveholders, therefore, have a vision in their 
mind of a powerful military State, of which slavery 
shall be the basis, bound together by a common interest, 
commercially independent and prosperous. Useless 
to tell them that trade will follow its own laws; that 
a country without manufactures, without diversified 
industry, without home-markets, can have no steady 
prosperity ; that cities do not spring up as the result of 

2 


10 


political combinations; that the buyer is no more de- 
pendent on the seller than the seller on the buyer; that 
the North, with its immensely varied industry, would 
still be prosperous, though all its cotton manufactures 
were destroyed; * but that, if the South could not sell 
its cotton, it would starve. Useless to remind them of 
their danger from insurrection; to ask where their 
revenue is to come from with free ports; to suggest 
the difference of opinion of Virginia and Alabama 
in regard to the slave-trade; to mquire how direct 
taxation will suit the six million non-slaveholders. 
Thoughtful men at the South consider these things ; 
but thoughtful men have little power over Southern 
deliberations now, ‘These dangers are contingent and 
future: the immediate danger is of being governed 
by the North in the interest of the North. 

This is the reason which induces secession: the 
feeling which prompts to it is hostility of conviction. 
Hostile interests are the reason, hostile convictions 
_the motive, for secession. The South believes slavery 
to be right and good: the North believes it wrong and 
evil. ‘This makes our connection with them a con- 
stant rebuke. Their conscience is kept in a state of 
perpetual irritation. They feel the presence of an 
irrepressible conflict. The whole North, in their 
view, is filled with abolitionists ; and abolitionists are 
people who wish the slaves to cut their masters’ 
throats. ‘They have been taught to believe, by North- 


* The whole annual product of Massachusetts, for example, is over 
three hundred million dollars; of which its manufactures of cotton, calico, 
and bleached goods, are only thirty-six million dollars, — about one-ninth. 


11 


ern democratic papers, that the whole Republican 
party sympathizes with John Brown and his invasion 
of Virginia. ‘They are allowed to see no Republican 
papers, and therefore are easily imposed upon by these 
falsehoods. No wonder, therefore, that they hate us; 
that they are incurably alienated from us. They look 
upon us as a cold, calculating race, without sympathy 
for their trials; consulting only our own sordid inte- 
rests; managing by contrivance to get the better of 
them, but destitute of all honorable, high-minded, 
chivalric sentiments. They have, therefore, come to 
hate us, just as the Irish hate the English, or as they 
Venetians hate the Austrians. yy 
Interest and feeling thus concurring toward seces-’ 
sion, it is highly probable that some of the Slave States 
really intend to secede. But how many? The an- 
swer would be “ All,” if they were homogeneous; but,, 
being heterogeneous, probably not all. The Slave} 
States may be divided into the slave-producing States, | 
the Slave-using States, and the Slave - consuming qe” 
States. Virginia belongs to the first class, producing 
more than she uses: she therefore exports them to 
the more Southern States. Her slave-crop brings her 
in perhaps ten million dollars a year. Such States “>, 
as Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina, are Pe 
Slave-using States, producing all they want for them- 
selves, but no more. But Alabama, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, Texas, are Slave-consuming States: they Qy’ ~ 
use up their slaves. On the great cotton and sugar a 
plantations, the average expectation of life for a slave™ 


is about six years. They are worked to death il 


Noe 





AS 


12 


about that time. The owners are absentees; leaving 
their estates to overseers and managers. The over- 
seers are paid in proportion to what they can make 
the estate yield. The number of bales of cotton to a 
negro decides whether their salary shall be five hun- 
dred dollars or two thousand. 

Now, the interest of these sections is different. The 
Slave-consuming States desire that the African slave- 
trade shall be re-opened: then they could get a slave 
for three hundred dollars, instead of fifteen hundred 
dollars. But the re-opening of the slave-trade would 
destroy the whole value of the slave-crop of Virginia ; 
and would, in fact, make it her interest to emancipate. 

The interests of these three classes are wholly dif- 
ferent. It is the interest of the Slave - producing 
States to stay in the Union, and to prevent the other 
States from going out of it; since, once out of the 
Union, they would immediately re-open the slave- 
trade, and so destroy the value of the slaves as an 
export in the Northern Slave States. The interest of | 
the Slave-using States is to remain in the Union them- 
selves ; but they have no such strong motive to resist 
the secession of the rest. Accordingly, the principal 

vA efforts to prevent secession may be expected from the 
Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee politicians. If 
these fail, and the cotton States secede, they will pro- 
bably go out by themselves. The four States which 
voted against Breckinridge (Virginia, Missouri, Ken- 
tucky, Tennessee), voted against secession. ‘To these 
may be added Delaware and Maryland, whose inte- 
rests bind them to the North, and which must soon 


13 


be Free States. Nor is it probable that North 
Carolina or Arkansas will wish to leave the Union; 
and it seems quite impossible for Louisiana to go 
out, even if she wishes to. ‘Therefore secession will 
be confined to five States; which seems to be the 
opinion of the secessionists themselves, since their 
flag contains only five stars. 

For the reasons and motives before mentioned, these 
five States may secede. The next question is, How 
will they secede ? 

Some say they have no right to secede, and they 
must be prevented by force from seceding. Others 
say they have a right to secede, and ought not to be 
prevented in any way. Mr. Buchanan says they have 
no right to secede, and we have no right to prevent. 
them. The “Tribune” says they have no right to | 
secede, and we have a right to prevent them, but it 
will be inexpedient to exercise it. 

All these views are intelligible, except that of the 
President: that is simply an absurdity. That which 
a State has no right to do, the other States have a 
right to prevent her from doing. Mr. Buchanan’s 
view is merely that of a weak man, who desires to 
avoid responsibility. | 

To us it seems clear, that, according to the funda- 
mental principles of our Government, the secessionists 
are right in their main principle. If a State consi- 
ders itself oppressed in the Union, it has a right to 
leave the Union peaceably. ‘This is only affirming 
the principles of self-government, which are asserted 
in the Declaration of Independence, and in almost 


14 


every State Constitution. The Declaration of Inde- 
pendence asserts in terms, that, whenever any form 
of government becomes destructive of the ends of go- 
vernment, ‘‘it is the right of the people to alter or to 
abolish it, and to institute a new government; laying 
its foundation on such principles, and organizing its 
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely 


\ to effect their safety and happiness.” 


So, too, declares the Constitution of Massachusetts ; 
saying, that ‘“‘ when the objects of government are 
not obtained, the people have a right to alter the 
government.” 

The Constitution of Maine says (art. 1), ‘* All power 
is inherent in the people; all free governments are 
founded in their authority, and instituted for their 
benefit: they have, therefore, an unalienable and in- 
defeasible right to institute government, and to alter, 
reform, or totally change the same, when their a 
and happiness require it.” 

Constitution of New Hampshire (art. 1, sect. 10): 
‘“¢ Government being instituted for the common bene- 
fit, &c.; therefore, whenever the ends of government 
are perverted, or public liberty manifestly endangered, 
and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the 
people may, and of right ought to, reform the old or 
establish a new government.” 

Constitution of Vermont (chap. 1, art. 7): ‘ The 
community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and in- 
defeasible right to reform or alter government in 
such manner as shall be by that community judged 
most conducive to the public weal.” 


ys’ 


Constitution of Connecticut (art. 1, sect. 2) says the 
same. 

Constitution of Pennsylvania (art. 9, sect. 2) says 
the same. 

Constitution of Delaware, in its preamble, says the 
same. | 

Constitution of Maryland, in its Declaration of 
Rights (sect. 4), says the same. 

Constitution of Virginia, Bill of Rights (art. 3), 
says the same; giving this power of altering or abo- 
lishing the government to a ‘“* majority of the commu- 
Babys. 

Constitution of Mississippi (art. 1, sect. 2) says the 
same. 

Constitution of Alabama (art. 1, sect. 2) says the 
same. 

Constitution of Kentucky (art. 10, sect. 2) says the 
same. | 

Constitution of Tennessee (art. 11, sect. 1) says the 
same. 

And so say the Constitutions of Ohio, Indiana, 
Missouri, and most of the other States. 

‘* All this is true,” it may be said; “‘ but this refers, 
not to the right of secession, but to the right of re- 


y 


volution.” But what is the difference? Webster 


defines revolution, ‘‘a material or entire change in | 


: ‘ 
the constitution of government.” In this sense, no; 


doubt, secession is revolution. If, then, they have. 
the right of revolution, have we the right of prevent- 
ing them from exercising it? If not, secession is 
only another name for peaceable revolution. Call 


; 


16 


it by that name, and it will not affect the question 
before us ; which is, Have we a right to prevent them, 
by the exercise of force; from leaving the Union? 
Certainly we have not, if they have a right to go; 
and that they have a right to go is asserted by the 
Declaration of Independence and in nearly every 
State Constitution. 
But it is said that no such right is given by the 
Constitution of the United States. Provision is made 
| for admitting States; but no provision is made for 
| letting them go out. ‘This is true; and the reason is 
‘obvious. The Constitution was intended as a bond of 
union, and it was hoped and expected that the Union 
would be lasting. Nevertheless, it may be right, 
under certain circumstances, for it to come to an end. 
No provision for a divorce is inserted in a marriage 
contract; for it is intended and expected that the mar- 
riage will be perpetual: yet there always remains 
the possibility of a divorce under certain circum- 
stances. The object of the Constitution was to pro- 
vide for union: consequently nothing was said in it 
about secession. Nevertheless, two of the amend- 
ments to the Constitution (IX. and X.) imply that 
this supreme power is reserved to the States or the 
people. Art. X. says, “‘ The powers not delegated to 
* the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited 
_ by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec- 
tively or to the people.” Now, one of, the powers 
which the States and the people possessed before 
accepting the Constitution was the power of deciding 
whether to be in the Union or out of it; for other- 


17 


wise they could not have come in. Now, this power 
is nowhere delegated to the United States, nor pro- 
hibited to the States: therefore it is still retained by 
them. ‘This seems to me conclusive as regards the 
constitutional right of secession. 

Great stress has been laid by Judge Story, Mr. 
Webster, and others, on the fact that the preamble 
to the Constitution commences with the words, ‘* We, 
the people of the United States,” and not “‘ We, the 
States.” This, no doubt, shows that the people were 
then acting in their sovereign capacity; and this, I 
think, requires that they shall act in the same capa- 
city if they secede... It must be the people who go 
out, as it was the people who came in. Secession 
cannot be accomplished by the act of a legislature, 
but must be accomplished by a convention of the 
whole people in any State. This, I think, we have 
not only a right to demand, but are bound to insist 
upon by the article of the Constitution (art. 4, sect. 4), 
which declares, ‘‘ ‘The United States shall guarantee 
to every State in this Union a republican form of 
government.” Judge Story, commenting on this, 
says, ‘“‘ The people of each State have a right to pro- 
tection against the tyranny of a domestic faction.” 
For these two reasons, therefore, no State should be 
allowed to secede until a majority of the people of the 
State have distinctly voted for secession. 

Acting on this principle, which is the foundation of 
_all republics, that sovereign power resides in the peo- 
ple, and that they have a right to change, abolish, or 


renew their form of government at pleasure, we 
3 


18 


have seen this very year several States in Europe vote 
themselves out of one union and into another. ‘The 
people of Savoy and Nice have voted to secede from 
Sardinia, and join themselves to France. ‘True, this 
movement was not initiated by the people, but origi- 
nated with their government; yet, when the govern- 
ments called upon them to vote on the question, they 
distinctly recognized this nght in the people. We 
have also seen Parma, Modena, ‘Tuscany, Naples and 
Sicily, and most of the provinces of the Pontifical 
States, annex themselves by a popular vote to the 
kingdom of Sardinia. Europe recognizes, at least by 
acquiescence, their right to do so. The most striking 
case, however, is that of the Emilia and Romagna, 
with the delegations of Bologna and Ferrara, Urbino 
and Ancona, which have seceded from the Pontifical 
States, and annexed themselves to a foreign power. 
The Papal court complains, and endeavors to retain 
them by force; but even the Catholic powers of Eu- 
rope refuse to aid it. ‘Thus even the despotic govern- 
ments of Europe acquiesce in the exercise of this 
right of secession. We also approve of it when it is 
exercised by an Italian State. Shall we deny the 
right only to the people of our own States? 
“Yes,” you say: ‘‘ we admit the right in a case like 
this. But this is the right of revolution, not of seces- 
sion.” But what is the difference between revolution 
land secession but this, — that revolution is secession 
accomplished forcibly: secession is revolution accom- 
plished peaceably? If the British Government had 


agreed to our independence, our revolution would 


19 


have been peaceable secession. Who was to blame 
for its not being so? The power which refused to let 
us go peaceably; for, if we had a right to go, Great 
Britain had no right to prevent us from going. If, 


therefore, you grant the right of revolution, you grant | 


with it the right of secession. ‘The greater includes 


the less. If a State has a right to obtain its inde- | 


pendence by force, it certainly has a right to obtain 
its independence peaceably. I do not see how those 
who grant the right of revolution can deny the right 
of secession. 

Suppose that the State of South Carolina having 
determined to secede from the Union, that the Fede- 
ral Government should refuse to let her go. We 
attempt to retain her by force. She attempts by force 
to secede. Secession has now become revolution ; and 
what was wrong, if done peaceably, has become right 
when done forcibly. I can see no sense in this course 
of reasoning ; except, perhaps, this: You may say, 
that if a State is so much in earnest about secession 
that it is willing to fight for it, it shows that it is at 
least convinced itself that it ought to go. It will not 
act lightly, therefore, but will count the cost, if it has 
to fight for its independence. ‘Thus, by granting 
the right of revolution, but denying that of secession, 
we prevent a dissolution of the Union, except under 
the gravest circumstances ; but if we admit that a 
State has a right to secede from the Union when- 
ever it will, by merely passing a vote to that effect, 
we make the Union a mere rope of sand, and destroy 
the stability of the Government. 


a 


20 


This is the most serious argument against the right 
of secession. But there are several assumptions 1m- 
plied in it, which must be examined. It assumes 
that nations are capricious in regard to their institu- 
tions, and disposed to change them unnecessarily. 
But all experience shows the opposite. It is one of 
the most difficult things in the world to change the 
form of government; and it will only be done by a 
people which is either suffering great evils, or at 
least believes itself to be suffering great evils, from its 
existing institutions. It also assumes, that to grant 
only the right of revolution is safer than to grant the 
right of secession. But the most unstable govern- 
ments in the world are those of Mexico and the 
South-American States; and this not because of 
peaceable changes in their institutions, but 1 conse- 
quence of perpetual revolutions. Our own Revolu- 
tionary War began, and many battles were fought, 
before we were ready for secession from England. 
That which gives stability to the institutions of a 
country is the character and condition of the people. 
The slaveholding republics of the South are uneasy 
because of their condition and character. ‘They are 
discontented with the Union, because free institutions 
and the government of the majority do not suit a 
slaveholding State. They need despotic institutions 
and a standing army. Freedom of speech and of the 
press is already abolished among them: the logic of 
events requires that all other free institutions should 


| follow. They are unequally yoked together with 


States where every thing is really free. To admit 


21 


the right of secession will not tend to break up the 
Union, or make it unstable, because the majority of 
the States are contented and prosperous in the Union. 
As long as they find the Union a benefit and blessing, 
and for a good while longer, they will continue in it: 
when they cease to find it so, they cannot be retained. 

It is idle to hope to keep States in the Union 
against their will. Suppose that we should have in 


the Presidential chair an Andrew Jackson instead ‘/ 


of that ‘‘ mush of concession” who now occupies it. 
Suppose that, by using the whole military and naval 
power of the United States, we should conquer South 
Carolina. What should we do with it after it was 


conquered? How hold it as a conquered State? | 
How guarantee to it republican institutions, when we | 


are occupying it with a military force? Such ques- 
tions show how impossible it is to attempt to prevent 
secession by exercising the force of the Government. 

The result, therefore, of our argument, is this: 
States have a right to secede; but secession must be 
the work of the whole people. The people must 
vote distinctly on that issue ; and the separation must 


be accomplished regularly and deliberately, — not by 


violence, but by an orderly method. 


The next question is, What ought the North to, ~ || 
* ff 


do? Shall the North concede ? 

This question includes several others. What ought 
the North to concede to the South? What can the 
North concede to the South? What concession does 
the South demand? What concession will prevent 
secession ? 


22 
What ought the North to concede ? 

y The answer is simple. ‘l’o preserve the Union, we 
eaeht to concede any thing but that which the Union 
is intended to secure. ‘lhe Union is a means, not an 
end. We must not sacrifice the end to the means. 
The end of the Union is to secure prosperity, peace, 
justice, equal rights, and liberty. It is evident, there- 
fore, that these are not to be sacrificed, even to pre- 
serve the Union. We must not surrender any of the 
principles which are at the foundation of the State, 
and on which the Union itself was built, even to 
preserve the Union. Compromises are good, when 
they surrender what is expedient only, giving up a 
part of a good thing to save the rest; but not good 
when they surrender justice and right. 

The Union is a means to an end. Give up the 
end in order to preserve the means, and both become 
worthless ; but if you preserve the end, though you 
lose the means, then other means may be found to 
take the place. Suppose the Union is dissolved. It 
is a great evil, no doubt. But is it irreparable ? 
Is it impossible to do in 1860 that which was done in 
1787% Were the people so much better and wiser 
in those days than they are now? or did the framers 
of the Constitution enjoy some special divine inspira- 
tion which we have not? Have we no longer trust 
in a Divine Providence which will guide us to-day as 
it guided our fathers then? 

For no light or common cause should we surren- 
der the Union ; but for no light cause will it be 
surrendered. ‘The danger is not that way, as far as 


23 


the people of the Free States are concerned. All 
history shows that people will bear almost any thing, 
and concede almost every thing, before they will con- 
sent to any great change in their institutions. This 
is as true now as when it was asserted in the Decla- 
ration of Independence, that ‘ all experience has 
shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer 
while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by 
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” 
The danger often is, that, from fear of change, we 
shall concede what we ought not to concede, and so 
throw upon our posterity the duty of making the 
change when it has become still more difficult. 
Men talk about the Union and our present Consti- 
tution as though they were arrived at by some happy 
accident or some secular conjunction of the planets, 
which could happen only once in a thousand years. 
But the Constitution was then adopted, and the Union 
formed, because they corresponded to the opinions 
and wishes of the people. Tor the same reason, they 
have continued. ‘The same kind of constitutions, 
and forms of government, as good as ours, have been 
adopted by Mexico and by the South-American States ; 
but, not corresponding to the character of the people, 
they have been useless and inefficient. ‘The convic- 
tions of the people of South Carolina and Georgia, in 
regard to liberty and slavery, have wholly changed 
since the Union was formed and the Constitution 
adopted. ‘They do not now believe in democratic and 
republican institutions: hence they wish to separate. 
When they do, they will immediately attempt to esta- 


24 


blish some consolidated system, some kind of despot- 
ism. ‘The substance of democracy will be immediately 
relinquished, and its forms will speedily follow. But 
the people of the North still believe firmly in republi- 
can principles: consequently, if the present form of 
government should be dissolved, another of the same 
kind will very soon replace it. 

It is emphatically true 1n this case, that, where 
there’s a will, there’s a way. While we believe in the 
end, there will be no difficulty about the means. 
While we cherish faith in justice, humanity, and free- 
dom, so long as we believe in the principles of de- 
mocracy and in true republicanism, so long we shall 
be able to organize these principles in suitable insti- 
tutions. Spenser says truly, that — 


“Of the soul the body form doth take ; 
For soul is form, and doth the body make.” 


We must not, therefore, sacrifice the soul of our 
institutions for the sake of preserving the body; for 
we should, in that case, have only a dead body, soon 
to be dissolved. 

The moral of this is, that those who undertake to 
save the Union by surrendering any principles of 
liberty or of justice are unsound and dangerous men, 
unfit to be trusted with any influence in our affairs. 
They are men who see the value of methods, but not 
the superior value of principles. They foolishly sup- 
pose that the body of a nation makes its soul, not 
knowing that the soul makes the body. They value 
forms more than substance, means more than ends. 


wD 


Their counsels have already brought us, step by step, 
to the verge of dissolution. ‘To save the Union, they 
have always been ready to surrender every thing 
which gave the Union value. By their advice, and 
to save the Union, we consented to the annexation of 
Texas, to the Mexican War, to surrender the Wilmot 
Proviso, to pass the Fugitive-slave Law, to repeal the 
Missouri Compromise ; and now they advise us to, | 
surrender every remaining barrier of freedom against: 
the encroachments of slavery. 


What can the North concede for the sake of 
union ? 

All sorts of concessions are proposed. We are 
invited to repeal all our laws which were enacted in 
order to secure the personal liberty of our citizens; 
to allow the whole immense territory of the United 
States to be made slave territory; to divide it between 
slavery and freedom; to forbid the discussion of sla- 
very in the Free States. And especially we are in- 
vited, above all things else, and as’ the most essential 
thing of all, to change our fundamental opinions on 
the right and wrong of slavery. We are asked to 
believe that it is right, and not wrong. 

Now, it is evident, that, with the best dispositions 
in the world, we are positively unable to do some of 
these things. Every Free State in the Union has just 
voted — most of them by immense majorities — that 
slavery ought to be excluded by law from the Territo- 
ries. ‘This vote did not proceed from impulse, but 


resulted from deliberate conviction. ‘The whole ques- 
4 


New 
ee 


26 


tion had been argued and re-argued; and the North- 
ern mind at last settled in this deliberate conviction 
of duty. Even if every Slave State should secede in 
consequence, the masses, which have gradually conso- 
lidated in the great Republican party, are determined 
not to surrender this principle. Convictions are not 
to be changed by threats. A few, who consider them- 
selves as leaders of the Republicans, but who really 
never belonged to them, may give way; but they 
will merely thereby cease to be leaders, and fall in 
the rear. But the masses of great parties are logical 
and consistent: they move steadily forward in the 
direction of their ideas. Whatever Republican leader 
consents to compromise a Republican principle for 
the sake of peace or union, at once disappears from 
all leadership in the party. Such will probably be 
the fate of very many Northern men, who will follow 
the footsteps of Messrs. Everett, Winthrop, Hillard, 
and others, into private life. This is inevitable. 

The Republican party is firmly convinced, ‘that the 
only safety for the country is to be found in repressing 
slavery by all constitutional means. It has a con- 
stitutional right to repress it in the Territories. It 
will not touch it in the States; but it will not fail 
to exclude it from the Territories. Any Republican 
who consents to admit slavery into a single acre of 
territory belonging to the Union ceases to be a Repu- 
blican. , 

All talk, therefore, of reviving the Missouri Com- 
promise line, and all schemes of the sort, are idle. 
The people have lost their faith in compromises. 


27 


There is an upper and a nether mill-stone of principle, 
between which all such compromises will be ground 
to powder. ‘The upper mill-stone is the conviction, 
that slavery is a wrong and an evil, and ought to be 
abolished wherever we have the power to do so: the 
lower mill-stone is the conviction, that slavery is right 
and good, and ought to be extended. Between these 
two principles there can be no compromise, but only 
irrepressible conflict. There is a large body, no 
doubt, of well-meaning but illogical men, who do not 
perceive it. They have no clear conviction on the 
subject. They do not know whether slavery is right 
or wrong, good or bad. ‘They think it is rather good, 
and rather bad; right here, and wrong there. ‘They 
call themselves practical people, and think that they 
are choosing the golden mean, the safe middle way: 
and so they say peace, where there is no peace; they 
daub the wall with untempered mortar, put new 
wine into old bottles, new cloth into an old garment, 
try to serve two masters; and so lose, at last, all ef- 
ficiency, and float helplessly, like driftwood, on any 
current. 

There are some questions which cannot be post- 
poned for ever. They must at last be decided. From 
time to time, there comes a day of judgment to na- 
tions as to men, when the axe is laid at the root of 
the tree. Apparently, that time has come with us in 
regard to slavery, when the issue must be met and 
the question settled. The money-market may refuse 
to see it; but the day of judgment is at hand. It 
comes, as it always comes, like a thief in the might, 


28 


taking us wholly by surprise. It finds the foolish 
virgins. with no oil in their lamps; incapable, there- 
fore, of giving us any light. But there are those who 
have long been expecting this crisis, and who are not 
taken unprepared ; watchmen who have seen the 
sword coming, and have given the people warning ; 
Cassandras, indeed, whose predictions have been al- 
ways disbelieved, but who have spoken their word, 
whether men would hear or forbear. ‘They have 
known well that this question must at last be decided. 
Often have they implored the people to decide it, 
when it was easier than it is now: but now the time 
has come when the people themselves feel that any 
further postponement is impossible; that the issue 
must be met, and met now. 

Can the Free States consent to repeal their Prr- 
sONAL-LipERTY Bris? 

They are strongly urged to do so by persons of 
ereat eminence, and whose opinions justly have much 
influence with the community. Still, great men are 
not always wise. ‘They are under many influences 
which may disturb their judgment. Some of them,- 
perhaps all of them, have already committed them- 
selves in regard to this question; some, from their 
associations, have been scarcely capable of fairly 
looking at both sides; some are constitutionally 
timid ; some, conservatives of that extreme order de- 
scribed by Paul Carrier, who says, that, if they had 
been present at the creation, they would have said, 
‘‘ Conservons-nous la chaos.” We must, therefore, 
ask for their reasons, going beyond their authority. 


29 


Judge Shaw, Mr. B. R. Curtis, and the other 
eminent men who have recently advised Massachu- 
setts to repeal her Liberty Bill, have unfortunately 
omitted entirely all consideration of a very important 
part of the subject. ‘They declare that the Personal- 
liberty Bill of Massachusetts is in conflict with the, 
Constitution and Laws of the United States, because 
it assumes jurisdiction in a case where Congress has 
assumed jurisdiction for the United States. But they 
do not state why the Massachusetts Law was passed, 
and what it was designed to remedy. They do not 
allude to the fact, that, by the Fugitive-slave Act of 
1850, any colored man can be taken from the State WV 
where he is living as a free man, and made a slave, 
without the question of his slavery or freedom being 
brought to trial. Massachusetts simply gives hima , 
trial. The Personal-liberty Bill of Massachusetts, 9,04 
passed in 1855 and amended in 1858, does not refuse 
to surrender the fugitive from slavery, if he is a 
fugitive: it merely refuses to allow her free citizens 
to be kidnapped, and turned into slaves, without a 
trial. Under the provisions of the Fugitive-slave 
Bill of 1850, if a man in South Carolina goes before 
a judge, and makes an affidavit that a man in Mas- 
sachusetts, named John Brown, is his slave, John 
Brown may be arrested, and carried before a United- 
States commissioner, who has only to be satisfied that 
he.is the John Brown intended in the affidavit. If 
satisfied on this question of identity, he issues his cer- 
tificate, and John Brown is carried off as a slave. 
This United-States commissioner is appointed by the 


30 


United-States judge ; but he is no judge himself. 
He may be a mere boy, ignorant of law as of justice, 
who received his commission because he was a Union 
saver, believing that the Union is safer whenever a 
colored man can be turned into a slave. 

Now, while we wish to defer to the opinion of such 
gentlemen as have signed their names to the Address, 
and are disposed to do so, two or three things are to 
be considered, which these gentlemen have omitted 
to usta te. i-— : 

1. If these gentlemen had been sitting as judges, 
after having heard the case fully argued before them, 
and giving a judgment under judicial responsibility, 
such a judgment from Lemuel Shaw, Benjamin R. 
Curtis, and Joel Parker, would have had command- 
ing influence. ‘They are, no doubt, learned in the 
law; but they are not now giving a judicial decision, 
but only political advice. Now, the views of most of 
these gentlemen on politics have long been known to 
our community; and, unfortunately, the people of Mas- 
sachusetts have been obliged, after much deliberation, 
to disagree with them. ‘Their political advice, there- 
fore, as to what legislation is desirable in Massachu- 
setts, will probably have little weight. Massachusetts 
differs from most of these gentlemen fundamentally 
and radically. 

2. We have already repealed a part of the law of 
1855, at the request of Gov. Banks. All that was 
then considered to be unconstitutional, or suspected of 
being so, was repealed in 1858. We did not wait till 
the courts decided it to be so. We did not wait for 


31 


any threats or any requests from the South. We 
repealed what part seemed to us objectionable, of our 
own accord. Having done this, it would not be wise, 
dignified, or like statesmen, to do more, without better 
reason than the informal opinion of some worthy gen- 
tlemen. If the law is in any part unconstitutional, it 
can easily be shown to be so. The courts are open 
to decide that question. ‘They would not recommend 
the people of Massachusetts to repeal other statutes 
in this way. They would say, *“* Wait till the courts 
decide them to be unconstitutional.” So we say 
now. 

3. These gentlemen omit to notice the reason and 
purpose of the Liberty Law of 1855. Its main object 
is, not to repeal the Fugitive-slave Bill or abolish it, 
but to prevent kidnapping. ‘There are in Massachu- 
setts ten thousand free colored people, — citizens of 
the State, — paying taxes, voting at the polls, doing 
military duty, and having a right to be protected by 
the State. The fifth article of the Amendments to the 
Constitution of the United States declares, that ‘‘ no 
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
without due process of law ;” and the seventh article 
declares, that in suits at common law, when the value 
in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of 
trial by jury shall be preserved.” 

But any one of the ten thousand colored citizens of 
Massachusetts may be taken at any moment, and 
turned into a slave, without ‘due process of law,” — 
without any trial at all, — without seeing either judge 
or jury. 


ers) 
wo 


Now, those who propose to us to repeal this law 
ought at least to suggest some other method by which 
the nights of Massachusetts freemen may be pro- 
tected. This has not been done. Apparently, it is 
thought a matter of small consequence what becomes 
of our free colored citizens, if only Southern gentle- 
men may be enabled to recover their slaves. 

By the Fugitive-slave Act of 1850, a man in South 
Carolina can go before a Judge, and offer proof that 
a certain man living in Massachusetts is his slave. 
That shall be put on record, and that record shall be 
taken as proof of two things: first, that the man in 
Massachusetts is a slave; second, that he escaped. 
Then he goes to a commissioner in Massachusetts for 
only one other thing; viz., to prove the identity of 
the person seized. | 

Thus are all the old guarantees of liberty over- 
thrown, and all protection for colored citizens taken 
away. This Liberty Act does protect them. Since 
its passage In 1855, not a colored man has been seized 
in Massachusetts, nor have any courts pronounced it 
unconstitutional. Why, then, repeal it? 

4. The gentlemen solemnly declare, that ‘“ there 
are laws on our Statute Book which are in conflict 
with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.” 
When they speak thus solemnly, 1t may be supposed 
_ that they are not using words carelessly. We deny 
the assertion that the Liberty Bill is opposed to the 
Constitution, or can fairly be said or thought to be so. 
It may be opposed to the laws, — that is, to the Fugi- 
tive-slave Law; but it is not opposed to the Consti- 


33 


tution. We will grant that the famous, or infamous, 
clause in Art. 4 requires the return of fugitives; but 
it does not prescribe how they shall be returned. The 
Massachusetts Law says they shall have a trial: the 
United-States Law says not. ‘The United-States Law 
is, therefore, more opposed to the Federal Constitu- 
tion than the Massachusetts Law is; since the Con- 
stitution orders a jury trial, and says, ‘‘ No person 
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without 
due process of law.” 

What are the provisions of this Liberty Bill, with 
which so much fault is found ? 

1. Its first three sections give to every person 
claimed as a fugitive, or imprisoned in any way, 
the writ of Hapras Corpus, as of right. There 
can be no objection to this; since the United-States 
Constitution (art. 1, sect. 9, clause 2) declares that this 
writ shall not be suspended, except in time of war. 
It takes possession of the prisoner, and carries him 
before a judge to have the cause of his restraint 
examined into. 

Sects. 4, 5, and 6 give the alleged fugitive a jury 
trial. 

Sect. 7 punishes any person attempting to make a 
slave of any one who is not a slave. 

Sects. 9, 15, 16, forbid all persons holding au- 
thority under the State of Massachusetts, as judges, 
sheriffs, constables, or jailers, to assist in the return 
of a fugitive. 

Sects. 17, 18, 19, provide that the person claimed 
as fugitive shall be defended by commissioners ap- 


5 


34 


pointed and paid by the State, and that he shall not 
be confined in any State jail. 

Unquestionably, the purpose of the law is to make 
it difficult to retake a fugitive in Massachusetts ; and it 
has done so. It says to the man claiming his brother 
as a slave, what Portia says to Shylock, ‘‘ Take thy 
pound of flesh ; but take care you do not shed a drop 
of blood in doing it.” | 

Well, have we not a right to do this?—to keep 
slavery to the letter of the law? Do not courts them- 
selves construe some laws strictly, and that in the 
interest of freedom ? 

We do not believe — the people of Massachusetts 
do not believe — that it was ever intended by the 
Constitution that Congress should legislate on the sub- 
ject. But, if Congress does legislate, then it should 
provide not merely for the return of the fugitive, ifa 
fugitive, but also that he shall not be returned if a free 
man. But it has utterly neglected to do this. It has 
made the law as harsh and obnoxious as possible. 
Then we have a right to exhaust all legal contrivances 
to make it a nullity. 

You tell us that slaves are happy and contented. 
Suppose we grant it. What, then, must be the cha- 
racter or the treatment of those who are obliged to 
escape? What love of liberty, what energy, what 
patience, what resource, and what motive for exertion, 
must they have! How must they be treated, to run 
all risks in order to gain a precarious freedom ! 

The result of this law has been to keep slave- 
catchers off the soil of Massachusetts for five years. 


39 


Is not that worth something? Shall we, by repeal- 
ing it, publicly issue an invitation to slaveholders 
and kidnappers to come here again? Do conserva- 
tive gentlemen wish us to revive the scenes of the 
Burns and the Sims renditions? Do they wish 
the militia under arms, Court Street in mourning, 
an angry mob attacking the Court House, and men 
shot and stabbed in our streets? ‘The Personal-liberty 
Law has prevented such things. Let it stand ! 


What will be the results of secession, in the Slave) 
States ? h Ag 


1. The almost immediate result of secession will be 
great financial embarrassment. 

The revenues of the United States from customs 
are received at the ports in the Free States mainly. 
The revenue received in 1853 at the port of New 
York was over thirty-eight million dollars; at Boston, 
over seven million; at Philadelphia, over four million; 
while the total amount received at the ports of 
Charleston, Savannah, and Mobile, was less than one 


million. If they open their ports, and inaugurate | 
free trade, they lose even this amount of revenue, | 
and must depend entirely upon direct taxation. This | 
taxation must fall directly on the slaveholders, since 


they alone possess the property. Any attempt to 
collect the amount required by a poll-tax would pro- 
duce immediate insurrection, or a general emigration 
of the non-slaveholding whites. The slaveholders 
must tax themselves; and they will then realize the 
force of Franklin’s proverb, and find that they are 
paying very dear for their whistle. 


r 4 
Ad 
a hh 
t sv 





36 


Let us see, then, what the revenue and what the 
expenditure of the South would be. 

The revenues collected from customs in the North- 
ern ports of the United States, in 1853, were, — 


New York: "a. “te. 6 be bene ies ee nee eee 
Bostomes 7. e+}. Ue ea ce ee 
Philadelphia os. . ufo" <i wid) motel) ete > Oe td 
Sai TANCISCO sis. s+ 51) ie Mibew ess Cyan t) Saiete) Ue lee eee Oe) aes 
Portland ts4 5." .' ote 8 Ne ee tL, Se ee: Feet eee 
Ginemnnatiz ss 3.5 wake he lee Belei eee ale bee Eh een bac oosee 
N ews Haven ueuce eo, sche Cesc key ei, eee eee 
OSWREO eh SP ie co ts wee mee ie me ed Soo re 








$52,679,413 


Charleston jen 24 0b Une uF 4 Sen ee Ov eee 
savannah 73 2°.) 0 0) ae ee 
Mobile: “4oe-s. mide b4h ae eS ee eee 

$661,035 


This is the whole revenue from customs of the five 
seceding States : — 


New Orleang--. “i055. a.) + eects 1 a ee et 
Baltimore,’ +, 5240. "2° ROR SRS ve eee Cee 
Richmond. |5! 27; oF 2H) os. 7. CE Pe eee 
Norfolk <. 2c. 05. a0) ules Sel y oh tas. is tape ke aE Anes Gee rs Deo 


— 


$3,570,115 





The total revenue from customs received by the 
Free States, therefore, amounts to between fifty and 
sixty millions. 

The total revenue of all the Slave States, to less 
than five millions. P 

And the total revenue of the five seceding States 
amounts to less than one million of dollars. 

Of course, they will have no income from the sale 
of public lands. 


37 


The seceding States will necessarily be military. 
They must have an army, and a pretty large one, to_ 
keep down their three million of slaves, and to resist 
the aggressions which they expect from the Free 
States. A navy they will not try to have; for they 
have neither ships nor sailors. But an army they must 
have. 

Now, the War Department of the United States 
takes, year by year, some eight million dollars. Sup- 
pose that the seceding States should be contented 
with an army of half its size: that would cost them, 
with forts, ammunition, cannon, &c., some four million 
dollars a year. But all their revenue from customs 
is nota million. It is evident, then, that they must 
resort to direct taxation, and that before the end of 
the first year. ‘They may lay a duty on goods which 
come from the North; but this involves an expensive 
system of revenue-officers to prevent smuggling over 
the long frontier-line. 

Direct taxation will come in a year, and will fall at 
once on slave-property: the slaveholders, who own the 
property, and for whose sake the secession takes place, 
will have to bear the expenses of their new State. 

2. The next result of secession, to the seceding 
States, will be the danger of slave insurrection. 

The fear of insurrection is the nightmare of the 
South. The evil is as great in the apprehension as 
in the reality. The constant terror to the whites, 
and the consequent restraint, severity, and denial of 
privileges to the slaves, produce a mass of evil be- 
yond computation. 


So 


38 


3. Democratic insurrection by the poor whites. 
This seems to be the chief apprehension at the pre- 
sent time. These ignorant, poor, and degraded whites 
seem determined now to assert their right to their 
share in the Government. 

4. War with the North-western States and the 
Union. | 

If Louisiana secede, it will hardly be possible to 
avoid war. ‘The people of the Valley of the Missis- 
sippi will never allow the mouth of that river to be 
held by a foreign power. At the beginning of the 
present century, when there was not a single steam- 
boat on the Mississippi or its tributaries, there was 
danger, first, of a Western secession, and then of a 
war with France, in consequence of New Orleans 
being in the hands of a foreign power. ‘The people 
of the Valley are already very much irritated at the 
outrages inflicted on their citizens in the Slave States ; 
and it would require no Peter the Hermit to preach 
a Western crusade for the capture of New Orleans. 
The danger of war lies just at this point; and, if 
Louisiana secede, it can hardly be avoided. 

These are the principal dangers which will imme- 
diately be felt by the seceding States, — financial ruin, 
slave insurrection, social anarchy, and war. The re- 
sult, sooner or later, will be the abolition of slavery. 
Slaves will be emancipated, either by their own act 
or that of their masters. A military despotism may 
precede or follow this event; but the final result will 
be a reconstruction of the Union, minus the element 
of slavery. And as slavery is the only disturbing 


39 


element in our institutions, a Union which omits that 
will probably be permanent. Secession, therefore, 
would seem to be the providential method for the 
abolition of slavery. He who causes the wrath of 
man to praise Him will restrain the remainder of 
wrath, and bring us peace in the end. ‘The secession- 
ists are blindly working out His purposes. Mad with 
dreams of empire, they do not see (what all the world 
beside sees) that secession is the direct step to eman- 
cipation. What the whole power of the North could 
not accomplish, even if the whole North were aboli- 
tionists, they are doing themselves. Such is the 
blindness which has possessed them. Still holding 
in their hands the control of the Union, and able to 
do almost any thing they will, they give up all this 
power from an imaginary fear, and so run into a real 
danger. Had they been satisfied with any concession, 
reasonable or unreasonable, there is great danger that 
we should have yielded it to them. The ancients 
said, that those whom the gods wish to destroy they 
first make mad; but Christians must rather believe 
that God drives men mad, not to destroy, but to 
save. 

Secession will, no doubt, also produce suffering at 
the North. It will interrupt commerce, depress 
manufactures, and diminish the profits of agriculture. 
We must take our share of suffering ; but our share 
will be very much the lightest. We have the two 
great advantages of free labor and an immensely 
diversified industry. Southern industry is almost ex- 
clusively agricultural, and that confined to a very few 


40 


staples; but the industry of the North flows through 
“a thousand channels. We are at once agricultural, 
commercial, and manufacturing. If every cotton 
factory in Massachusetts were closed to-morrow, al- 
though it would produce a great amount of evil, it 
would not be irreparable ; for it constitutes less than 
one-tenth of the industrial products of the State. 
The annual cotton manufacture of Massachusetts, 
including calico, bleached and colored goods, amounts 
to the vast sum of thirty-six million dollars; but the 
Secretary of State, in publishing the statistical returns 
of Massachusetts for 1855, gives it as his fixed per- 
suasion, that Massachusetts industry amounts to more 
than a million dollars a day for each working-day in 
the year. 

The duties of the Free States are so simple and so 
plain, that we cannot doubt their being fulfilled. Firm- 
ness, calmness, kindness,—this is all. There is no 
concession to be made; for we have nothing to con- 
cede. What the South asks it 1s impossible to grant ; 
and what we can grant would not satisfy her. No 
concession which the North can or will make would 
be of the least value. If, indeed, we could surrender 
the whole or half the territories to perpetual slavery ; 
if we would admit the principle of the Dred-Scott 
decision, — that the colored man has no rights which 
the white man is bound to respect; if we should repeal 
all laws protecting our own citizens from being kid- 
napped, and consent to the indefinite increase and ex- 
tension of slavery, — it is possible that the Slave States 
might be satisfied. Possible, but doubtful; for the 


4] 


principal difficulties would still remain. We should 
still differ from them as to the fundamental question, 
Is slavery right or wrong? and there still would re- 
main the fact, that the political power of the country 
is passing out of their hands into ours. The gravamen 
of our offence is, that we are stronger than they. Free 
labor has made us rich; free schools have made us 
intelligent ; free speech has made us strong. The 
people of the Old World, in love with liberty, hating 
oppression, throng to our shores, turning aside from 
the slave-blasted regions of the South. The roar of 
manufacturing industry is heard in all our valleys; the 
shrill cry of the rushing locomotive echoes, from all 
our hills. Our real crime is that we are strong, and 
erowing stronger. If we could concede a part of our 
population, if we could repeal our wealth, if we could 


compromise our political strength, the slave-power | 


ae 


might be satisfied; but, as this is impossible, all com- ' 


promises will be ineffectual. 

Nothing remains for us, then, but to be firm, calm, 
and kind. We are strong enough and safe enough 
to wait. After they have plundered our arsenals and 
seized our forts, or even fulfilled Gov. Wise’s pro- 
eramme, and taken possession, by force, of the Capi- 
tol and Treasury at Washington, they will still be 
weak and poor. Strength and riches will remain 
with the Free States. We can say to them, “ Make 
up your minds, gentlemen, as to what you want to do, 
and letus know. Discuss the matter among yourselves, 


and decide. If one, two, or fifteen States really be- 
: | 


—_ 


42 


lieve that they shall be safer and more prosperous out 
of the Union than they are now, and decide to go out, 
however sorry we may be at this decision, we must 
consent to it. Let us part in peace. We are willing 
to be not only just, but generous, in the terms of sepa- 
ration. You shall have all the proportion of goods 
that falleth to you. Property and money we will 
concede, — money-loving Yankees as we are, — but 
not principle. Go, and try your experiment. See 
what can be made of a pure slaveholding republic. 
Then turn it, if you will, into a slaveholding monar- 
chy; inaugurate a slaveholding despotism; consolidate 
your States into one empire; relinquish the State 
sovereignties of which you have been so proud; give 
up all your own liberties, rather than give up negro 
slavery. Perpetually driven forward by the stern 
logic of necessity, give your despot a standing army, 
and arm him with irresponsible power. ‘Then repeat 
the story of the Mexican and South-American States. 
Let revolution succeed revolution, till the Muse of 
History drops her pen in despair, unable to chronicle 


the fast-flyng changes of a State always in unstable 


equilibrium. Let Jefferson Davis proclaim himself 
emperor, and Mr. Toombs revolt, and seize the crown. 
Finally, let some desperate faction or hard-pressed 
chief seek strength by proclaiming the abolition of 
slavery; for this is the fatal and necessary termination 
to which you are moving. We will look on and wait, 
pursuing in peace our dull mechanic tasks, until you 
have tried the whole series of your experiments ; 


43 


_ and finally, when you have come to yourselves, and 
desire to come back to the old family house, with 
your one evil institution left behind, we shall be hap- 
py to receive you again. ‘Then we shall be able to 
commence together a magnificent progress, greater 
and better than any thing which statesman has planned 
or poet dreamed. We may then found a truly Chris- 
tian Commonwealth, whose gates shall be named 
Salvation; and its walls, Praise. ‘Then we shall have 
a true Christian democracy, in which all, from the 
least to the greatest, shall have their rights secured to 
them, and in which all the great and complicated 
problems of social life shall find their solution.” 

Our duty, therefore, is the simple one of waiting, 
trusting in Providence. We must beware of seeking 
a false peace by concession. We owe it to the slave- 
holders themselves not to concede what they ask. 
It will be as bad for them as for us to have slavery 
increased. ‘They need free territory as a city of re- 
fuge to which to escape. We owe it to our children 
not to postpone any longer the decision of this ques- 
tion. Sooner or later itis to be met; and it had better 
be met now, and decided. It is evident that com- 
promises at last must cease; that, sooner or later, 
concession must have an end; that we cannot for ever 
yield to the demands of slavery, enforced by the threat 
of secession. Let us take our stand here frankly and 
firmly. 

The question, then, is now to be sETTLED, not com- 
promised. The time is favorable, as far as the Free 


44 


States are concerned. Our crops have been abundant, 
our commerce prosperous, our manufactures in a 
healthy condition. The North is united, the South 
divided. Hitherto, the reverse has been the case; 
but now Virginia and Kentucky and Maryland do not 
wish to unite with South Carolina and Georgia. They 
feel it impossible to do so. They suggest, therefore, 
an absurd and impossible union of the Northern Slave 
States and Southern Free States. ‘They wish to have 
a union which shall contain Virginia, North Carolina, 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Maryland, from 
the South; Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, from the North. But what 
motive could Pennsylvania and Ohio have for linking 
their destinies with Virginia rather than with New 
York and New England? Are not Ohio and Pennsyl- 
vania as strongly Republican as any New-England 
State? Did not Pennsylvania give seventy thousand 
majority for Lincoln? Is she not the very banner 
State of the Republican party? ‘There is more fel- 
lowship to-day between Massachusetts and Virginia 
than between Pennsylvania and Virginia. 

Such calculations overlook the fact, that every Free 
State voted for Lincoln in November last. The con- 
duct of South Carolina has only strengthened them 
in their hostility to the evil system of slavery, the 
source ofall our troubles. When the Union divides, 
the Free States will keep together. 

It is fortunate for us, at the present crisis, that the 
executive power of the Free States is in the hands of 


men who are sworn to freedom. In times of peace, 
a governor is rather ornamental than useful, — good 
for receiving princes, and delivering addresses at agri- 
cultural fairs ; but in times of danger, when treason 
stalks abroad and men begin to talk rebellion, the 
governor of a State is the most important person in 
it. The whole military power of the State is in his 
hands; and, if in the right hands, he can preserve the 
peace, and quell the first buddings of treason. 

South Carolina has put herself in the wrong by her 
rebellious acts and her revolutionary measures. She 
has seemed to choose armed revolution rather than | 
peaceable secession. While we believe a State has a , 
right to secede, we also believe that it must be done | | 
peaceably, and by agreement with the other States. j 
This she must try first; and, failing this, she may re- 
sort to revolution. But South Carolina has not tried 
this. Instead of asking leave to secede, and treating 
on the terms of secession, she has rent herself away 
by violence, and seized the property of the Union. 
This ought not to be allowed. She must be compelled 
to keep the peace first ; and then we may proceed to 
treat with her.. 

The talk of preventing Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration 
by acts of violence is preposterous. That, when 
eighteen sovereign States have elected a President 
by constitutional means, their will can be set aside by 
such ridiculous measures as are proposed, is simply 
absurd. If the votes cannot be counted in Washing- 
ton, they can be counted elsewhere. Mr. Lincoln 


46 


will be President, if alive, on the fourth day of March 
next; and will then use the whole military and naval 
power of the nation to put down rebellion and en- 
force the laws. In this he will have the support of 
the immense majority of the people, the army and 
navy of the United States, the governors of every 
State north of the Potomac, and the militia of the 
Union. When peace is restored, when the laws are 
enforced, when the country is quiet, — then, if the 
Southern States, or any of them, desire to leave the 
Union, in my opinion they should be allowed to do 
so. But the Union will remain the same glorious 
Union without them as with them. The disturbing 
elements eliminated, it will rise to a greater height 
of prosperity and power. 

The true course for the Republican party to take, 
and one in which all true citizens and patriots will sup- 
port them, is, therefore, plain. Let their watchword 
be, ‘“ ‘The Union, the Constitution, and the Enforcement 
of the Laws;” no concession to treason, no compro- 
mise with rebellion. We cannot coerce a State to 
remain in the Union against its will We must not 
attempt to do this. But we will not allow any State 
to go out in a violent and revolutionary way. ‘The 
laws must be obeyed by all parts of the country till 
any part is formally released from that obedience by 
the common consent. -The public property seized 
by South Carolina must be restored: then we can treat 
with her about seceding. 

It is the first duty of the Government to put down 


47 


forcible resistance to the laws. ‘The present Execu- 
tive has made haste to do this in Kansas. A mere 
riot there summons to the spot Gen. Harney (whose 
fidelity to slavery was proved in St. Louis by whipping 
to death a negro woman) and the United-States dra- 
goons. But men pursuing their peaceful avocations 
in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas, are whipped 
and hung by mobs to the number of hundreds, and 
the Government takes no notice; the forts are seized, 
and it remains silent; the custom-house and arsenals 
are robbed, and it does nothing. Suppose that Mas- 
sachusetts had tarred and feathered a single Southern 
slaveholder; suppose she had seized the Charlestown 
Navy-yard; suppose her mobs had sent back to the 
South the families which are now being sent here for 
safety: it is probable that we should have a Presi- 
dent's proclamation within twenty-four hours, and 
perhaps some of our own citizens proclaiming, in 
pompous and inflated speech, that treason had been 
committed, and that the traitors should immediately 
be punished. But no such gentlemen open their 
mouths now to rebuke Southern treason. They are 
only bold in denouncing their own State, — only de- 
termined when liberty is to be crushed out, and 
Northern prejudices in behalf of justice and hu- 
manity to be trampled down. 

The course of the Free States is plain; their path 
is as a shining light; their duties, and those of their 
chosen President, are manifest, — fairness, coolness, 
kindness, no concession of principle, but determination 









ae Aascane will unite all panies in their suppo | 
aes we shall soon see one overwhelming N orth rest 


hte the peace of the land, and enabling even ‘the ‘Ski 

_ - i States, if they will, to retrace their steps, and s : 
e 4 once more in our great prosperity. Sh OA ae 
- Yours, ies 


~ -S os 





A MAassacHUsETTs 


; 


a 
& 
b 
ie) 
v0 
i 
2 
> 
i] 
©] 


Y. 


az 
 . 
8 © 
“°© 

b> | 

>) 
=¢ 
= 
r 
” 


| 


i 


. JAN. 21, 


PAT 





UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-UR 


WONT 


di 


Wi 





